Oh, dear god, they are not just citizens! They take an oath! I suppose all us 'regular folk' should just fall in line and never question a military man because he took an oath and is held to a higher standard than us!
The text of the ad (in case you haven't read it) finishes:
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
They didn't call him a liar before he even opened his mouth, they were saying that if he continues to cherry pick facts (as the Republican administration currently in office has a history of doing) then he will be betraying the American people in misleading them to believe that their is substantial progress in Iraq, when in fact that claim is questionable at best. (that's the claim they are making)
They don't have the right to do this? It's wrong to suggest that a military man might be doing this? I guess so, because military men are not human, they are apparently robots programmed to follow the UCMJ and wouldn't lie. EVER.
The nuts at MoveON.org think that if Petraeus testifies that there is substanital progress in Iraq, when in fact there isn't (which is their belief) then he has betrayed the American people. That's it. That's what they're saying. They don't have the right, or the obligation to say that if it's what they believe? (the may be nuts, and are, but it's certainly a viable argument considering how this war started and the use of 'military information' to justify it)
-- Modified on 9/28/2007 5:52:43 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton blasted Republicans Wednesday for their recent uproar over a MoveOn.org newspaper ad questioning Gen. David Petraeus' credibility, telling CNN's Anderson Cooper their "feigned outrage" was completely "disingenuous."
"This was classic bait and switch — focus on that as opposed to focusing on what's happened," the former president said.
Clinton also highlighted a string of past questionable campaign commercials targeting Democrats, and suggested Republicans are acting hypocritically.
"These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with [former Sen.] Max Cleland — who lost half his body in Vietnam — in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That's what the Republicans did," he continued. "And the person that rode to the senate on that ad was there voting to condemn the democrats over the Petraeus ad.
"I mean, these are the people that funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And the president appointed one of the principal founders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador," Clinton added. "But they're really upset about Petraeus. But it was okay to question [Massachusetts Sen.] John Kerry's patriotism on a blatantly dishonest play that had dishonest claims by people that didn't know what they were talking about."
Props to Clinton for having the balls (unlike most Democrats) to call out the Republicans on this one.
If anyone is guilty of "Betray-US" it is this bullying Bush Rightwing.
If you were too engrossed in slavish jingoism over at Bill O’Reilly or Hannity and missed it; a poignant civics lesson is included below.
Interesting that he calls it a bait and switch...isn't that exactly what he himself is doing here? Focusing on the past as opposed to focusing on what's happened?
Nah, of course he isn't. Only the GOP and evil President Bush do that...lol
-- Modified on 9/26/2007 9:06:23 PM
You said it, not me.
Just move it to read "evil GOP and President Bush".
He is focusing on the present, and using examples from the recent past to buttress his point. There's a difference.
When someone criticizes Bush and the righties begin yelping about Clinton's blow job, that's bait and switch.
Clear?
How about Slickster's lying under oath, or how about Slickster's moslesting a young intern, or how about Slickster's shady business dealings, or how about Slickster's pardons, or how about Slickster's involvment in teh Vince Foster, etc. episodes? Did Shillary give Slickster a BJ? That would be Switch and Bite.
With a little prodding he may blow a gasket.
Bill Clinton was busted lying about an affair. That is the sum total of over 5 years and $50M of investigation into every facet of his life. Let's see - what could they find on you given 3 weeks and $50K? This guys was a veritable saint by that measure. All those other things you bring up are scurrilous rumors and outright lies - and I say that because Ken Starr says that. If they were not he'd have pursued it.
Are you sure Clinton didn't have the tooth fairy killed too?
Lame, lame, lame. Grow up.
You sure picked a beauty as your hero, "Certified Liar Slickmeister Clinton". I don't know who else he killed, maybe a fairy took it too.
with proof of all those allegations? Why haven't you come forward with it? Be the hero! Put him in jail where you believe he belongs! What are you waiting for?
In other words, if you can't prove he killed peole, ran drugs through Mina, etc then kindly shut the fuck up, like Ken Starr had the class to do.
Is exactly what we already knew, that he never had any and still doesn't have any respect for for the military.
He, like most of the left, still see no difference betwee "calling out" a military officer and a political candidate.
Re-read the article. Clinton was slamming the Republicans over their faux outrage, not General Petraeus or the military. The real blame here falls on Bush for putting Petraeus in the position of having to defend a failed political policy. That's not the roll of the military and as usual, Bush doesn't understand the situation.
1) Re-read "what" article? All we got were a few cut and pastes. No link.
2) The Republican outrage (as well as mine) isn't fake. Calling it so doesn't make it true.
3)Disparaging a General Officer (or any ooficer) for political purposes doesn't even come close to doing the same to a political candidate. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.
4) The REAL blame here falls directly on the Dems.
First, because THEY WERE THE ONES DEMANDING PETRAUS' REPORT. Remember that they no longer trust Bush to report. THE DEMS DEMANDED IT.
Secondly, because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CALLED HIM A LIAR. A LIAR. A LIAR. This is an offense punishable by court martial. Bring forward the charges if it's true.
5) YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION.
-- Modified on 9/27/2007 4:05:43 PM
) Re-read "what" article? All we got were a few cut and pastes. No link.
Then read this. Senator Hagel's questioning of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Croker.
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/09/11/petraeus_hagel/
2) The Republican outrage (as well as mine) isn't fake. Calling it so doesn't make it true.
That would almost be believable if the Republicans hadn't trashed previous military officers -- i.e., Generals Casey and Shinseki -- who disgreed with Bush's policies or were made fall guys.
3)Disparaging a General Officer (or any ooficer) for political purposes doesn't even come close to doing the same to a political candidate. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.
Disparaging is in the eye of the beholder. I'll defer to Senator Hagel.
“Every American is proud of the service of our American military and those who are serving in what ever capacity in a very difficult situation in Iraq. And we should not, at all, confuse the sense of support and the gratitude that all Americans have for your leadership and your service. That said, we, just as you, each have responsibilities. We are elected by the people of our states. To question strategy is not unpatriotic.”
4) The REAL blame here falls directly on the Dems.
First, because THEY WERE THE ONES DEMANDING PETRAUS' REPORT. Remember that they no longer trust Bush to report. THE DEMS DEMANDED IT.
Secondly, because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CALLED HIM A LIAR. A LIAR. A LIAR. This is an offense punishable by court martial. Bring forward the charges if it's true.
Show me where in the Uniform Code of Military Justice it says that a civilian can be punished by court martial. Now you're really reaching.
It's not just Democrats who said that the Petraeus report was more representative of Bush administration's wishful thinking than the facts in Iraq. The Petraeus/Bush report runs counter to the General Jones report to Congress, the GAO, the National Intelligence Estimate, the Inspector General for Iraq reconstuction, the Army Chief of Staff and the Commander of Centcom.
So put all that together and combine it with Bush history of lies regarding Iraq and you're saying that Petraeus wasn't simply giving the administration line in his report to Congress.
You need to give the General a bit more credit than that. He's a smart guy and has seen what happens to other commanders to who deviate from the company line. He told Congress exactly what Bush wanted him to. Call it stretching the truth, call it spin, call it lying, but it didn't reconcile with the facts.
"That would almost be believable if the Republicans hadn't trashed previous military officers -- i.e., Generals Casey and Shinseki -- who disgreed with Bush's policies or were made fall guys."
If Republicans did it then they are dispicable too. Bring forward your quotes. I really doubt the Republicans treated them as liars and traitors while they were commissioned.
"Disparaging is in the eye of the beholder. I'll defer to Senator Hagel."
Petraus was in effect called a liar and a traitor.
"Show me where in the Uniform Code of Military Justice it says that a civilian can be punished by court martial. Now you're really reaching."
You misunderstood (on purpose, I'm guessing). I was obviously referring to Petraus. His supposed LIES would be in violation of the UCMJ.
"So put all that together and combine it with Bush history of lies regarding Iraq and you're saying that Petraeus wasn't simply giving the administration line in his report to Congress."
Drawing contrasts to the General's conclusions, based on opposing facts is fine. Calling him a liar is totally different. BTW, the vast majority of discreancies with other military reports were due to different reporting periods.
Neither the MoveOn.org ad nor anyone else of any consequence has ever called Gen. Petraeus a traitor. That term was used by many right wingers who accused MoveOn of calling the General a traitor but nothing like that is in the ad.
RE: Liar -- use whatever language want -- misrepresentation, spin, obfuscation of the truth -- but when five sources are telling one story and one source is telling a different story based on the same evidence you have to question the truthfulness of the one.
Sorry, but no one is buying the Bush BS that dissent is unpatriotic or isn't supportive of the troops. Petraeus put on his Bush-sanctioned puppet show, Congress slapped him down for it and now it's time to move on (no pun intended).
"Sorry, but no one is buying the Bush BS that dissent is unpatriotic"
That's a poor attempt at trying to change the subject.
be·tray -
a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance
Dress the pig you guys created in any new dress and lipstick you like.
I simply stated that those involved were accusing Petraus of lying, while he could not completely defend himself. It's clear to anyone who actually respects the military that his attackers were trying to score far more political points than Bush ever was, and they also have no respect for the military.
Engage him in debate about the military issues. Present facts that counter his points. Just don't call him a liar, especially before he opens his mouth.
C'mon, you're as bad as MoveOn.org. You cherry picked the definition that best fit your argument. If you look at a dictionary those are 2 of many definitions of the word betray.
Others are:
To deceive
To lead astray
And don't say you're using your copy of the UCMJ pocket dictionary because the people using the word are civilians and in the context of the ad it's VERY clear that they're not saying he's giving AID to the enemy. They're saying he's deceiving the american people by stating there is progress in Iraq which, in their mind, is not true.
fuck, he's too stupid to know where he is anyway
Nice choice?
Right back atcha. How do YOU know for certain what they meant? You don't. Did they tell you personally? NO. Did they clairify their remarks? NO.
If what they said was so right on the mark, so acceptable, then tell me, why did roughly ONE-HALF of the Democrat Senators (22) vote for the bill that censured and condemned MO.org? HUH? Tell me! It's because they agreed with ME.
The ones that didn't vote the correct way probably wanted to but were either running for President or up for re-election in 2008, thus they are beholden to and in the grips of MO.org, KOS, etal. Bought and paid for, lock, stock and barrel.
-- Modified on 9/28/2007 5:47:00 PM
It's not difficult to grasp the context of what they meant if you read the ad. Go ahead, give it a read. They're saying, he's cherry picking intelligence to mislead the public. It's also quite clear they're not accusing him of "aiding" the enemy. Nobody is implying that he's secretely working for Al Quaeda.
People vote for the censure for many reasons. I'm certainly not going to analyze why 22 Dems voted for it. I might vote for it too. I'm not a huge fan of any of these types of ads. However, all things considered, some of you people are so hypocritical about going after MoveOn and giving a free pass to your own party.
P.S. They do somewhat clarify their remarks if you go to their website. They have lots of links to articles about the carnage being much worse than what Petraeus is claiming. They don't have articles insinuating his aiding the enemy though.
-- Modified on 9/29/2007 9:24:05 AM
The point is NOT about the ones that voted FOR IT. It clear why those 22 voted "Yea".
It's about why the remaining dems voted AGAINST it. That's what I analyzed.
Why did MO have to "clarify" their remarks in the first place? You spend that kind of money and you ought to be pretty confident ahead of time that your real message gets out. And it did.
They clarify on their website, which has been up since the ad, because they're providing support for their opinion. It's what responsible people do when they have a controversial opinion. (Again, I'm not a fan of MoveOn, but this reaction is insanity)
I would imagine you still haven't read that ad. Like most knee-jerk political analysts you heard someone on conservative radio question the ad and now you're locked in your opinion that they're calling him a liar. Which just isn't the case.
The message did get out to those that read it. The others, like you I imagine, just heard a sound byte and ran with it. Yet, I'm sure you're the same bunch of people hollering about O'Reilly and the fact that everybody just steals sound bytes to manipulate the facts and say he's a racist.
Do people in this country even read any more?? Seriously?
Basing opinions, beliefs or judgements on your imaginations is never a very good thing to do.
-- Modified on 9/29/2007 9:39:30 PM
Remember Westmoreland and MacArthur. When you pin on the 1st star, it comes with the territory. You may have to answer a politician's questions.
One hell of a lot of BS goes on in DC, but in this particular case it comes down to a pretty simple issue illustrated by McCain: here he is with his body armor and platoon of bodyguards, snipers, etc., charging thru the Baghdad market and telling us everything is normal. Riiiigggghhhhhhtt. That's the reason for the bodyguard.
Now. This is the core of counterinsurgency - what can you do to create political stability? Sometimes you can do something, but most often, the parties have to solve the problems themselves. See Vietnam and almost every other counterinsurgency problem. It took the Brits about 700 years to deal with the Irish, and in the end, they had to write off 26 of 32 counties.
Now. The administration knew that going in. They are simply not that stupid. There is not a whole lot we can do with the US Army, Navy, Air Force & Marines to resolve the civil war that we triggered in Iraq. (I don't give a shit that Saddam may have been worse. What I care is that we are now in the middle of it bleeding money and blood, with no fucking end in sight, because the administration didn't see fit to have an exit plan. I have to suspect that permanent involvement was the plan from the beginning, which benefits one group only, and that is the defense contractors and oil companies - and of course it provides entertainment for the theocrats and rednecks.)
LIAR LIAR LIAR. The FUCKING REPUBLICANS are PATHOFUCKINGLOGICAL LIARS.
We should start with congressional investigations and impeachment, and then proceed to criminal trials depending on what comes out. There is no excuse for the combination of BS and incompetence we see in this adminsitration. If you can't solve a problem, at least STAY THE FUCK OUT of it!!
Maybe by shouting louder you can make your point, your logic skills and dearth of fact obviously doesn't get it. Makes you long for the old days when the big lie worked....
If I could I would, it PISSES ME OFF THAT MUCH.
Sometimes when people are soooo stupid, in denial, or maybe just plain hateful, SHOUTING IS ALL A PERSON HAS LEFT in attempt to get through.
IT MIGHT WORK ON HIM?!
Oh shit, that's right, you're a Republican, with a fucking negative IQ, that sucks all intelligent thought into the Black Hole of Panic.
for the military to serve. Well, Bush did go over the hill. He doesn't know where he was, but if you're not in formation, you're UA.
Of course them badmouthing Cleland, and Kerry and even McCain was just pure jealousy. They didn't really mean it. They don't mean anything they say.
Whatever you do, stay away from the issue, did Bush fuck up Iraq? Is the Pope Catholic? He may not be.
Why, Bush respects the military so much, he sends them out on indefinite jobs, totally unprepared, and tells them he starts wars with whatever he has. Then sends their leader to run interference for him with Congress, hoping to insulate himself from the obvious criticism of his massive epic fuckup.
Yeah, that's respect. A pimp's respect.
maybe you should, a good bump on the head might do you good!
we've been thru this shit before. Remember Vietnam? Oh, I guess George & Dick don't. Do you?
"remember Vietnam?" Can't seem to forget it. US Army. That is when I went from an idealistic liberal to a realistic conservative. I didn't want to have any association with a bunch of lying, lazy, ungrateful, long haired greasy liberals. If you were around then I suspect you were a stinking hippie. Did you give spitting lessons?
and that would explain a lot about you. Because, like usual, you are 180 out. To say nothing of fucked up again.
he is still an unmitigated douche bag. It is one thing to spread political garbage about a politician because we expect them to be liars but it is quite another thing to sling such crap against a professional soldier doing his job. "Move on", a lacky of George Soreass, needs more Exlax so it can get rid of its substance which is one hundred percent shit. Once they have been cleaned out a good dose ought to be given to the world's leading certified liar, Billy Boy Clinton, professional scumbag.
I've never understood why people feel soldiers should get a free pass regarding everything. They are still citizens of the US. They're still human. They can lie, and act adversely to the interests of the country. The General was thrust (voluntarily) or not into a political forum. As such, his answers are open to public scrutiny.
They are NOT JUST citizens. They take an oath that obligates them to a COMPLETELY different set of legal rules than you.
It is against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for an officer to lie (in a situation such as this). They do NOT get a free pass, but we DO expect MORE from them. He was called a liar before he even opened his mouth. You call THAT scrutiny?
-- Modified on 9/27/2007 6:09:07 PM
Oh, dear god, they are not just citizens! They take an oath! I suppose all us 'regular folk' should just fall in line and never question a military man because he took an oath and is held to a higher standard than us!
The text of the ad (in case you haven't read it) finishes:
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
They didn't call him a liar before he even opened his mouth, they were saying that if he continues to cherry pick facts (as the Republican administration currently in office has a history of doing) then he will be betraying the American people in misleading them to believe that their is substantial progress in Iraq, when in fact that claim is questionable at best. (that's the claim they are making)
They don't have the right to do this? It's wrong to suggest that a military man might be doing this? I guess so, because military men are not human, they are apparently robots programmed to follow the UCMJ and wouldn't lie. EVER.
The nuts at MoveON.org think that if Petraeus testifies that there is substanital progress in Iraq, when in fact there isn't (which is their belief) then he has betrayed the American people. That's it. That's what they're saying. They don't have the right, or the obligation to say that if it's what they believe? (the may be nuts, and are, but it's certainly a viable argument considering how this war started and the use of 'military information' to justify it)
-- Modified on 9/28/2007 5:52:43 AM
guess what, buddy? It's against the law for ANYBODY to lie under oath.
In fact, there are laws that criminalize many false statements WITHOUT an oath.
You don't seem to get it. Lying generally is illegal, I don't give a shit who you are.
Well, OK, lots of Republicans may be exempt because nobody's really sure if they're human beings.
What gets them off? Because these are fucking statements of fucking opinion, and if you have some reasonable basis for your statement, then insanity or poor logic is not a crime. You could fucking testify that the stars proved that things would be OK in Iraq, and if you truly believe that, it's not criminal.
Sure, it's nearly as entertaining as McCain & Petraus have been. But it's not a lie unless you knowingly make a misrepresentation of fact. Prove that.
And that is what always gets the Republicans off. Nobody can prove they have brains enough to know anything.
Why don't you say it to Ollie North. He might believe it. Remind us what action the military took against North for lying to Congress.
North WAS indicted (16 felony counts), convicted on three, but then over turned on appeal by one little technicality. HE HAD BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE IMMUNITY BY CONRESS.
The fact that you would even compare North's situation to Petraus'...well never mind. You will never get it.
I do get it. North was tried and convicted in civil court. But under you standards for military officers shouldn't North have been court martialed for breaking his oath to disobey illegal orders? Should the same standard apply to Petraeus?
Certainly. If you believe or anyone believes that Petraeus has committed a felony then try to bring charges.
Maybe you don't get it because your reasoning is so convoluted.
You're assuming that Petraues was lying. Obviously the Pentagon doesn't think so.
North was tried by a prosecutor who KNEW it wasn't going to stick, but he did it anyway for political purposes. And it didn’t stick as witnessed by the Appellate Court overturning the convictions.
Did North commit follow any unlawful orders? That’s a tuff call I think, but thanks to the democrat congress so lustful after Reagan, we will never know for sure. Why didn’t the Pentagon go after North? Probably because the non-military court already was or maybe they didn’t agree with you.
But that’s all beside the point. If you know Petraeus was lying, even you can bring charges. Why doesn’t anyone? Hmmmm?
private citizens don't bring criminal charges.
I've already told you what protects people from different sorts of misrepresentation charges, and that is you have to stick them with a clear issue of fact, not opinion, and show that they knew differently.
The statement that something is "working" or "normal" may be patently stupid but not necessarily perjury.
that my statement was correct.
But after researching Title 10 U.S. Code myself, I find that you are much closer to the truth than my original misinformed statement.
Although I did discover that you, jacko, if you are receiving a pension do qualify as a person able to be an "accuser". So you could begin to rectify this atrocity by getting the ball rolling by wearing to charges that you have investigated and know that Petraeus was lying.
Criminal charges are brought by the public representative with jurisdiction, eg the DA or US Atty. You aren't even competent to testify unless you were personally at the hearing.
Whatever you do, do NOT figure out WTF you're talking about.
BTW, I never brought up anything about criminal against Patraeus. It was charges for court martial I was referring to. The oath he took and the UCMJ does not allow him to lie, not to Congress even without being "sworn in".
first, lying is generally against the law. 2nd, what do you think the UCMJ is, other than a criminal code administred by the military?
If you go down to the county law library and spend a few hours figuring out what makes a valid oath, you'd realize it's nothing more than the court clerk's ritual to make it clear that they're not joking.
So are you trying to tell us that he's gonna turn into a pumpkin if he lies? Are you thinking he's under some obligation to tell the truth that say the President isn't?
There is a difference between 'lying' and manipulating information. It would be virtually impossible to bring charges that he's lying and nobody should. However, it is in dispute (and I have seen plenty of ex-military say they think Bush using Petraeus like this is wrong) that what he's saying is an accurate reflection of what is going on in Iraq.
Questioning that is different than outright calling him a liar. People are saying that him deceiving Congress and the US in manipulating or at least cherry picking information to show progress is being made is what's happening.
Debate and diagreement is perfectly fine, but not the way the dems and MO did it.
by calling people fags and traitors.
Can you just give me one line from MO or from a Dem that calls Petraeus a liar? I'll be satisfied with one quote.
They are questioning whether or not he's manipulating information. That's it. Considering the information that everyone took to be truthful leading up to the war without questioning it, don't you think it's prudent to at least inquire as to whether he's picking and choosing information that suits this administration the best???
If we accepted everything that comes from the Bush administration, and the people they use to relay that information as truth, then why wasn't Iraq armed to the teeth and why didn't we find Bin Laden hiding out with Saddam in that bunker.
as soon as they thought they were close to bin Laden?
You're a Republican with no brain cells to spare, so I guess not.
but when a military commander allows himself to be a front man, mouthpiece and shill for a politician's agenda he too libels himself as a target for slung crap.
MoveOn's page in the newspaper did not malign or question the General's service to our nation; only his recent appointment as spokesperson for the Bush brigade.